R. v. Naud

Cory J. ‑‑ We are in substantial agreement with the reasons of the majority in the Court of Appeal (1996), 74 B.C.A.C. 257, 121 W.A.C. 257, 106 C.C.C. (3d) 348. This case was relatively short and counsel reviewed the evidence extensively. The appellant neither testified nor called evidence.

The trial judge adequately instructed the jury as to the evidence they could consider in determining whether the presumption in the Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 212(3) , had been rebutted. He advised them to consider all of the evidence as to how the appellant and the prostitute were living together in the apartment and the manner in which the finances were dealt with. With respect to the opinion of the minority in the Court of Appeal, it was not essential that the trial judge isolate and specify a “particular and severable” item of evidence that was capable of being evidence to the contrary.

This appeal which comes to us as of right is dismissed.